Reforming our drug policies will save lives

DECENT, honest politicians do not play to populism, ignorance and fear, they argue cases on merit. Enlightened public policy is based on evidence and is judged by effectiveness, efficiency and fairness. On the crucial issue of drugs, Australia's politicians and policies have failed the nation; the current policies of prohibition and the ''war on drugs'' clearly do not work. It is hard to think of anything on the statute books more ineffective and counterproductive.

Let us be clear from the outset: The Age is not in any way seeking to condone or encourage the misuse of addictive substances, be they legal or illegal. On the contrary, we stress that addictive drugs are extremely dangerous, particularly for young people whose brains are still developing and who are especially vulnerable to drug-induced mental health problems. Drug addiction and misadventure cause tragedies. Far too many Australian families can attest to that. That is the point: we are arguing for a public debate about policies to minimise harm. Such a debate should include discussion of decriminalisation of currently illicit substances, particularly cannabis. Such policies would use the health and community services systems to treat people with drug problems, rather than using the criminal justice system to punish them. Such policies would focus on regulation and education. Such policies would not include prohibition.

The evidence is global and unambiguous that prohibition does not prevent the supply of drugs; it merely puts it in the hands of organised crime, as one of the last century's greatest policy minds, Milton Friedman, argued decades ago. Nor does prohibition dent demand. Further, it is simply not sustainable to argue that decriminalisation boosts demand. That has not happened in places such as Portugal, the Netherlands and Switzerland, where that policy has been in place for some time. Nor will it happen in the United States, where a number of states are legalising possession of cannabis for recreational use, with others likely to follow.

As drug and alcohol expert Luke O'Connor points out today in The Zone on our back page, most people who use drugs do so recreationally and do not end up with substance-related problems. Those who do should be treated for a medical condition, not as criminals.

The distinction between licit and illicit substances is arbitrary. There is growing evidence that prescribed drugs, particularly tranquillisers and pain management medications, may be causing more harm than proscribed substances. The community debate about harm minimisation, education, regulation and appropriate treatment of people with substance-related problems needs to encompass all drugs. Tobacco is a good example. It is a legalised killer. But smart regulation and sustained public education programs have massively reduced tobacco consumption.

People in power know change must come. Politicians, police and policy experts know that the case against prohibition is overwhelming. Many politicians readily concede in private that the policies outlined above are required, and would save lives and prevent much unnecessary suffering. But, at this stage, they refuse to say so publicly, for fear of a backlash. To their credit, the police have been quietly diverting people with drug problems into the health system.

Many people, particularly parents of children and adolescents, are understandably terrified of drugs. But were they better informed, were there less fear-mongering and stereotyping associated with this issue, they would likely support change, for it is in the interests of the very people they wish to protect. The Age will continue arguing for reform and publishing clear, sober, evidence-based information to help foster debate and change.